GR 201725; (July, 2014) (Digest)

G.R. No. 201725, July 18, 2014.
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Joy Alcala y Novilla, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Joy Alcala y Novilla, was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for the illegal sale of 0.02 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The prosecution’s version established that on September 30, 2004, a buy-bust team was formed after a tip from an informant. PO2 Erwin Bautista acted as the poseur-buyer and was given marked money. At the target area, the informant introduced PO2 Bautista to the accused as a buyer. The accused asked, “Iiskor kayo, magkano?” and upon PO2 Bautista’s reply of “piso lang” (₱100), she produced a plastic sachet from her pocket. PO2 Bautista handed the marked money, received the sachet, and gave the pre-arranged signal, leading to the accused’s arrest and recovery of the marked money. The seized sachet was marked “EB-JA” at the police station, then submitted to the crime laboratory, where it tested positive for shabu. The defense version claimed the accused was merely accompanying a friend to Police Station 11 on September 30, 2003, when she was arbitrarily arrested and detained, denying any involvement in a drug sale.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to convict the accused of the illegal sale of shabu, in violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, emphasizing the doctrine that factual findings and credibility assessments of the trial court are generally not disturbed on appeal. The prosecution successfully established all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the drug and payment. The testimonies of the police officers, presumed regular in the performance of their duties, positively identified the accused as the seller and detailed the consummated transaction. The corpus delicti was preserved, marked, and identified in court. The Court also ruled that the defense of denial, being weak and self-serving, could not prevail over the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The Court further noted that any non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 (custody procedures) did not render the arrest illegal or the evidence inadmissible, as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug were preserved. The accused was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.